On Wed, 9 May 2007, Jignesh Shah wrote:
> But we still pay the penalty on WAL while writing them in the first place I
> guess .. Is there an option to disable it.. I can test how much is the impact
> I guess couple of %s but good to verify :-) )
on modern CPU's where the CPU is significantly faster then RAM,
calculating a checksum is free if the CPU has to touch the data anyway
(cycles where it would be waiting for a cache miss are spent doing the
calculations)
if you don't believe me, hack the source to remove the checksum and see if
you can measure any difference.
David Lang
>
> Regards,
> Jignesh
>
>
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Jignesh Shah escribió:
>>
>>
>> > Now comes the thing that I am still exploring
>> > * Do we do checksum in WAL ? I guess we do .. Which means that we are
>> > now doing double checksumming on the data. One in ZFS and one in
>> > postgresql. ZFS does allow checksumming to be turned off (but on new
>> > blocks allocated). But of course the philosophy is where should it be
>> > done (ZFS or PostgreSQL).
>> >
>>
>> Checksums on WAL are not optional in Postgres, because AFAIR they are
>> used to determine when it should stop recovering.
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
>
